↓ Skip to main content

Adjustment of speaker’s referential expressions to an addressee’s likely knowledge and link with theory of mind abilities

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Adjustment of speaker’s referential expressions to an addressee’s likely knowledge and link with theory of mind abilities
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00823
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amélie M. Achim, Marion Fossard, Sophie Couture, André Achim

Abstract

To communicate cooperatively, speakers must determine what constitutes the common ground with their addressee and adapt their referential choices accordingly. Assessing another person's knowledge requires a social cognition ability termed theory of mind (ToM). This study relies on a novel referential communication task requiring probabilistic inferences of the knowledge already held by an addressee prior to the study. Forty participants were asked to present 10 movie characters and the addressee, who had the same characters in a random order, was asked to place them in order. ToM and other aspects of social cognition were also assessed. Participants used more information when presenting likely unknown than likely known movie characters. They particularly increased their use of physical descriptors, which most often accompanied movie-related information. Interestingly, a significant relationship emerged between our ToM test and the increased amount of information given for the likely unknown characters. These results suggest that speakers use ToM to infer their addressee's likely knowledge and accordingly adapt their referential expressions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Student > Master 8 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 32%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Arts and Humanities 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 11 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,411,569
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,115
of 29,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,747
of 264,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#440
of 521 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,724 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,367 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 521 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.